Export customer application recipe

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the authorization requirement, that secret values are redacted from the output, and that the exported revision is immutable. It does not describe the export payload shape or size/pagination characteristics, which with no output schema is a remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its scope front-loaded before the exclusion and the permission note. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter read-only export with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers scope, exclusions, authorization and output redaction, which is nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The main omission is what the returned export actually contains or its format, though the absence of an output schema makes that a lesser concern.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so orderNo, revision and project_id are each documented in the schema, including the revision default ("omit for the current revision") and the project_id provenance from list_application_recipes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Export one immutable customer-owned recipe revision") and immediately scopes it by excluding VPSnet catalog recipes, which separates it from catalog/inspection siblings like list_application_catalog and get_application_recipe_validation. An agent can tell what this returns and what it does not without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit exclusion ("VPSnet catalog recipes are not exportable through this or any other MCP tool") and a prerequisite ("Requires applications:read"), which is stronger than typical guidance. It stops short of naming the sibling tools to use instead for catalog recipes or for listing revisions, so it is clear context without full routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.